We write as former chiefs of the U.S. Forest Service with combined experience of more than a half–century dealing with national forest issues. For three decades, an increasingly acrimonious debate over old–growth forests has raged. It is time to declare old growth off–limits to logging and move on. Why?

First, although no one knows exactly how much old growth remains, what’s left is but a small fraction of what once was and will ever be again. And what remains did not survive by accident. Most remaining old–growth stands occur in rugged terrain where the economic and environmental costs are simply too high.

Second, scientists increasingly appreciate old–growth forests as reservoirs of biodiversity with associated “banks” of genetic material. Most stands are protected as habitat for threatened or endangered (and associated) species—to meet the purpose of the Endangered Species Act: “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved.” It’s time to stop fighting over what little old growth remains unprotected.

Third, a large and growing number of people want old–growth forests preserved for posterity. Values associated with beauty, spirituality or connection with the past are expressed in other terms applied to old growth, such as ancient or cathedral forests. These values are as real as those determined for commodities in the marketplace and clearly exceed the values as timber.

Fourth, if the past is prologue, harvest of old growth will be publicly resisted in sequential and predictable steps—appeals, legal actions, protests and, in the end, civil disobedience. In the Pacific Northwest, where most old growth remains, costs of making old–growth timber sales are disproportionately high with very low chance of ultimate success given environmental constraints and process requirements. Ten–year–old plans that envisioned some old–growth harvest have been overcome by events—legal, political, social, scientific and economic.

Fifth, few sawmills remain in business that can process large old–growth logs. The mills that have survived are geared to efficiently process smaller second–growth trees.

Sixth, and most important, the never–ending fight is draining time, money, energy and political capital needed to address more pressing problems.

Forest management should focus on restoring forest health and reducing fire risk, initially in areas where risk to human life and property are greatest—the so–called wildland–urban interface. Then appropriate management practices should be strategically targeted in the right places and at the right scales across the landscape. The knowledge gained in the wildland–urban interface should then set the course for any expanded management actions. That’s a prescription that draws on pragmatic combinations of economic need, political reality and the application of adaptive management based on research and experience.

Meanwhile, younger trees—some quite large—now inhabit old–growth stands as a result of a century of fire suppression that prevented periodic low–intensity ground fires that naturally thin the forests. Such trees provide ladder fuels, which can carry fire into the crowns of old–growth trees. These are the trees that should be thinned and harvested to reduce the potential fire mortality of the old–growth trees. Redwood and sequoia stands in northern California are particularly vulnerable.

Those who have won the past fights to protect old growth should now support forest management­—including thinning—to address forest health problems, reduce susceptibility to fire and provide a sustainable supply of wood in the spirit of the multiple–use mandate. As our demands for wood increase, is it ethical to import more timber from nations with weaker environmental protections and fewer technical capabilities and ignore our own sources of supply? We think not.

Several decades ago, the Forest Service struggled to meet targets to harvest more than 10 billion board feet a year from the national forests. Most now agree that was unsustainable. Today circumstances have reduced harvest levels to below 2 billion board feet a year—considerably below what could be sustained while meeting multiple–use mandates.

It is time to move beyond the “board feet of timber debate.” The performance standard should be “acres treated” based on state–of–the–art science and in compliance with the law. In the spirit of multiple use, all applicable values should come into play, including cultural–archaeological, water, timber, biodiversity, recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, wilderness, nontimber forest products and grazing. The work of improving forest health and restoring watersheds on national forests has great potential to provide jobs and economic opportunities to many of the same communities caught up in the “cut versus no–cut” battles of the past.

Should we protect remaining old growth? We say yes. In turn, should we expect agreement on the mandate of the Organic Administration Act of 1987 that states, “No national forest shall be established except to protect the forest within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of the citizens of the United States.” Again, we answer yes.

A saying common in India comes to mind. “When elephants fight, only the grass suffers.” Rural communities, and the forests, have suffered enough from strife too long sustained and management too long delayed. It is time to move on. Recognizing that harvest of old growth from the national forests should come to an end is a good start.

Mike Dombeck is professor of global environmental management at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. Jack Ward Thomas is professor of wildlife biology at the University of Montana.